Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

ukcarper

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Greatape, youre talking a lot about stats of wealth that are overall, and dont take into account distribution. When ive discussed with people in my life who are in my parents generation they dont remember what milk and bread cost 30 years ago, they describe what they used to do in their lives and could afford, while also owning their first houses. Also, money that was once spent on more expensive clothes (which incidentally fostered a more mend and make do attitude in most) has probably just diverted to technology and leisure activities, where spending had gone up drastically. The only thing my parents in particular comment on is how much more my generation spend on eating out, for them takeaways and restaurants were far rarer, ill grant you that. Now, either these people, from diverse backgrounds and in different areas of the country (i grew up in SE, now in NE) are collectively lying, or theyre all remembering fairly accurately and youre wrong. Hmm, whats more likely?

Also, stop with the homelessness is primarily due to addiction spiel. Unless you can provide some evidence for such a damning accusation. Which you cant, because its absolutely false. A lot of people are homeless because councils have a responsibility to house them and guess what... THEY DONT HAVE THE HOUSES, so many end up in temporary accommodation and B&Bs... In Peterborough i believe theyve recently bought a load of portacabin housing in to help deal with the problem! And its not due to 'no dss' landlords because landlords dont leave houses empty, so there are clearly lots of tenants that can rent privately. Honestly where have you got this idea that the majority of poor and homeless people are addicts?! Its literally ridiculoud, not even the daily mail comes out with quite so outrageous fiction.

I don't understand this we are worse or we were worse off than you. I am in my sixties so have personal experience covering the last 50 years. Things are so different now to 40 to 50 years ago that trying to compare then to now is difficult. In the past most things were much more expensive as can by see on the measuring worth website since 1967 RPI has increased by 16x while earnings have increased 31x. The exception being housing especially in the south east where I live, but house prices have not increased linearly they have gone up and down in fact there have been times in the past when prices in relation to earnings have approached what they are now.

The other main difference is employment and education, I left school at 16 but many of my friends left at 15, none stayed on to take A levels. Jobs were more plentiful when I left in 60s but there have been times when that wasn't the case. Also I wonder how keen younger people today would be to take the hard and boring 8 to 5 jobs many people had to take.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't understand this we are worse or we were worse off than you. I am in my sixties so have personal experience covering the last 50 years. Things are so different now to 40 to 50 years ago that trying to compare then to now is difficult. In the past most things were much more expensive as can by see on the measuring worth website since 1967 RPI has increased by 16x while earnings have increased 31x. The exception being housing especially in the south east where I live, but house prices have not increased linearly they have gone up and down in fact there have been times in the past when prices in relation to earnings have approached what they are now.

The other main difference is employment and education, I left school at 16 but many of my friends left at 15, none stayed on to take A levels. Jobs were more plentiful when I left in 60s but there have been times when that wasn't the case. Also I wonder how keen younger people today would be to take the hard and boring 8 to 5 jobs many people had to take.

Rusty is just a bitter millenial wanting everyone to feel sorry for him and making his accomplishments sound a lot greater as he lived through the current hard time relative to the 60s. he doesnt understand we have never had it better before.

ukcarper

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Actual food prices dont really mean much on their own - what did the average person spend on food in the past? We also consume far more calories than people did in the 70s. Bread and milk prices are meaningless.

I believe it was about 33% of income in 60s compared to less than 15% now.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

Rusty is just a bitter millenial wanting everyone to feel sorry for him and making his accomplishments sound a lot greater as he lived through the current hard time relative to the 60s. he doesnt understand we have never had it better before.

Don't get me wrong I dont think it is easy for young people now, especially in relation to property in the south east. But expectations are much higher I got married in early 70s and had very little money left after paying mortgage, general household expenses and buying food. So much so that we rarely went out for meals etc. We could only afford to run one old car and my wife had to use public transport.

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Actual food prices dont really mean much on their own - what did the average person spend on food in the past? We also consume far more calories than people did in the 70s. Bread and milk prices are meaningless.

We don't consume more calories than in the past, we very likely consume less because we have gone from jobs like coal mining and steel works and working on a manufacturing line to moving our little fingers across a keyboard complaining how difficult life is for 7 of the 8 working day hours

Activity levels make a huge difference. A skinny coal miner consumes 5,000 calories a day. A keyboard desk job complaining about life if they consumed the same they would be approximately 200kg which is extreme obesity

Rusty_Shackleton

economic wrote: »

Rusty is just a bitter millenial wanting everyone to feel sorry for him and making his accomplishments sound a lot greater as he lived through the current hard time relative to the 60s. he doesnt understand we have never had it better before.

Jog on economic.Anyone thats read what ive said will note that:

- Ive been talking mostly about house prices, wealth, and job opportunities as the things my generation are being screwed on, compared to the baby boomers. Like others have pointed out it is very difficult to compare overall wealth between generations because of very different ways of living and major changes. I think the experience of baby boomers and the comparison they make it the best indicator, and while some of you have lived through it and so have the ability to comment in the same way, the baby boomers in my life in family, different employers over the years, friends' parents etc. Say the opposite to what some are claiming here. Given the usual lazy comments from some about my generation (and me personally) being entitled and lazy, on the basis of nothing whatsoever, it looks an awful lot like you have an older generation martyr complex, maybe its helpful to deny that you've stolen an awful lot of wealth from your childrens and grandchildrens generations.
- all this talk about modern conveniences is ridiculous because they arent comparable across generations. The easiest indicator of 'ease' in any generation is availability and quality of jobs, since that's what gives most people in a society their wealth. On that front there is absolutely no denying there are far less opportunities to young people today than there were in the latter half of the 20th century. That is by far the most important thing.
- as for 'me wanting people to feel sorry for me', during this debate I've mentioned im a graduate, with a good job, do okay financially (particularly for region i live in), am hopeful my career has a good trajectory, am currently buying a house, and im fortunate enough that in the future i will inherit some (modest) wealth. How f**king dare you accuse me of seeking sympathy for myself, if I was I certainly wouldn't mention the above things. Those facts about myself dont prevent me from empathy for the many people in my generation who arent as fortunate.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

Don't get me wrong I dont think it is easy for young people now, especially in relation to property in the south east. But expectations are much higher I got married in early 70s and had very little money left after paying mortgage, general household expenses and buying food. So much so that we rarely went out for meals etc. We could only afford to run one old car and my wife had to use public transport.

Its never been easier for property than it is today

You had to pay for your housing your kids will get it for free and your grand kids will get more than one property for free (assuming you and they had the typical 1.7 kids per woman)

Arklight

GreatApe wrote: »

Four out of five homeless people in Britain are regular drug-users - and almost half have used heroin or crack in the last month. The figures, far higher than previously acknowledged, have shocked homelessness experts.

One in four of Britain's homeless use cocaine or ecstasy, researchers found. One in three use tranquillisers. Only 4 per cent do not use either drugs or alcohol at all.

The research will confirm the view of the Government's controversial 'Homelessness Tsar', Louise Casey, that money given to beggars is often spent on drugs. In the run-up to Christmas 2000, Casey launched a campaign encouraging people not to give money to street sleepers.

Crisis researchers interviewed 400 homeless people at length who were either sleeping on the streets or temporarily living in hostels or emergency accommodation.

---

So Rusty next time you give them a pound to feel good, look into their eyes and try to spot the 4% that are not on drugs or alcohol.

Do you think there might possibly be reasons why people suffer substance abuse, and why they end up homeless?

No, because you haven't thought about it at all. You just want to victim blame.

What do you actually do that entitles you to look down on others?

GreatApe

GreatApe wrote: »

Its never been easier for property than it is today

You had to pay for your housing your kids will get it for free and your grand kids will get more than one property for free (assuming you and they had the typical 1.7 kids per woman)

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Jog on economic.Anyone thats read what ive said will note that:

- Ive been talking mostly about house prices, wealth, and job opportunities as the things my generation are being screwed on, compared to the baby boomers. Like others have pointed out it is very difficult to compare overall wealth between generations because of very different ways of living and major changes. I think the experience of baby boomers and the comparison they make it the best indicator, and while some of you have lived through it and so have the ability to comment in the same way, the baby boomers in my life in family, different employers over the years, friends' parents etc. Say the opposite to what some are claiming here. Given the usual lazy comments from some about my generation (and me personally) being entitled and lazy, on the basis of nothing whatsoever, it looks an awful lot like you have an older generation martyr complex, maybe its helpful to deny that you've stolen an awful lot of wealth from your childrens and grandchildrens generations.
- all this talk about modern conveniences is ridiculous because they arent comparable across generations. The easiest indicator of 'ease' in any generation is availability and quality of jobs, since that's what gives most people in a society their wealth. On that front there is absolutely no denying there are far less opportunities to young people today than there were in the latter half of the 20th century. That is by far the most important thing.
- as for 'me wanting people to feel sorry for me', during this debate I've mentioned im a graduate, with a good job, do okay financially (particularly for region i live in), am hopeful my career has a good trajectory, am currently buying a house, and im fortunate enough that in the future i will inherit some (modest) wealth. How f**king dare you accuse me of seeking sympathy for myself, if I was I certainly wouldn't mention the above things. Those facts about myself dont prevent me from empathy for the many people in my generation who arent as fortunate.

Economic is in your generation or close to it I believe he is early 30s

You are definitely wrong that some people with some confirmation bias say the past was better doesn't hold up yo the truth.

1971
49.9% owned their own home much lower than today. If things were so fantastic why was home ownership so low on 1971?

By the way you can have a reasonable idea of what the UK was like if you look at a middle of the road developing country like Turkey/China. Its just like most people would describe the UK decades ago. Food costs a lot more relative to income (about 3x more) people can retire earlier (age profile) homes are actually expensive and ownership not that high but in 30 years they will look back and say oh look how cheap things were thanks to 5-10% annual inflation without realising that today for the people of the country things aren't cheap or easy.


Also housing is only expensive in the south. In 7 regions of the UK housing, buying the median terrace with a mortgage is so cheap that it costs less to do that than it does to rent the local social housing. You might actually be in one of those regions. Like a lot of people you don't factor into account inflation. Sure houses in 1971 look cheap to you because you are looking at today's wages and condicitoons and 1971 prices. The people of 1971 certainly didn't fond housing to be affordable hence why less than 50% owned while more than 65% of Brits own today

GreatApe

Arklight wrote: »

Do you think there might possibly be reasons why people suffer substance abuse, and why they end up homeless?

No, because you haven't thought about it at all. You just want to victim blame.

What do you actually do that entitles you to look down on others?

Why do you think I look down on them?

I've stated on this very thread, and other threads, I accept humans don't have free will so if I were them atom for atom situation for situation I would be them in every single way and I would make the exact same decisions.

My point was a statement of simple fact, most homeless people are addicted to drugs or alcohol some 96% are. If you want to help them please do but you do them a disservice if you don't accept the fact that most of them are on drugs and its an almost impossible thing to cure once addicted.

I believe the topic of homelessness came up as one of the resident lefties when questioned why taxes nerd to be higher said to help the homeless. Well there aren't many homeless 0.006% of the population and 96% of them are homeless not for lack of high enough taxes but for addictions